# I see no one worth voting for... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 16, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424 "2016-04-16T23:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 86
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/86 "2016-04-28T15:00:49Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It seems to me that you claimed that the NPR piece assesses Clinton’s usage of the term [absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity). It does not. Your reading comprehension skills have failed you. As I stated in the previous post #83, the NPR cite was offered to disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction. There’s a hint in the part you quoted (my bold) > [@Bone](#): > > Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity,\*\* like for diplomats? \*\*That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to **this novel idea.** I’ll walk you through it since you’ve failed to grasp it twice now. The first sentence is a question, the key part is “like diplomats?” The third sentence is a statement - that being that “none of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea.” That novel idea is…wait for it…your ‘like a diplomat’ bullshit. In other words, the cite is used to show an absence of your claim. In fact, I asked you about this in the last post too: > [@Bone](#): > > Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats? Because your construction doesn’t just stretch credulity, it wraps it around a building and then takes a shit all over it. Can you? > [@](#): > > In fact basically **only one** of your article do (if we consider the WAPO and Trib pieces to be basically the same). And that one calls it an exageration. (my bold) What do you think “totally free of liability” means? That claim is false too. Are you trying to say that that claim is some wholly different one that her multiple other iterations of “absolute immunity”? Because that’s some serious handwaving. Can you find any cite that evaluates Clinton’s claims as accurate? > [@](#): > > I’ve linked to Clinton’s remarks in full upthread. She refers to “the absolute immunity”, pretty clearly referring to what she said earlier. I’m sorry if you can’t handle common English usage of a somewhat technical term, but that’s no reason to call someone a liar, while saying that you are backing up that claim with references that don’t even use the same phrase. And this is what you seem to want to cling to. That your interpretation, shared by no one, is correct, and that all who have evaluated Clinton’s claims are incorrect or are leaving out the gem that you have discovered. Brilliant! But realize this interpretation was fabricated by you only after you realized your error, that Clinton didn’t in fact muff her remarks about “absolute immunity”. First you tried to claim this was like an off the cuff remark that she made unintentionally. After I showed she used this phrasing repeatedly on many occasions, only then did you switch to this absurd notion that she’s actually referring to something like diplomatic immunity. > [@](#): > > We both know that the gun manufacturing industry has been treated as special for many years, pre-dating that 2005 act. There’s no reason to get butthurt about calling it absolute immmunity. None. There’s certainly no reason to point fingers and accuse others of lying. Except of course, when others are lying. Like Clinton. Because she is a liar. Using phrases in an effort to deceive is not new for gun control folks (see Surgarman and “assault weapons”). They do this to create confusion and increase support for their ideas where otherwise there would be less. Much like the result when people are mistaken for several years about product liability and guns blowing up - like you. But you wont make that mistake again - is two times enough? > [@](#): > > I’d hit your other points, but honestly I think that after thousands of words on the subject less is very much more. This is probably better for you since you keep avoiding addressing issues. What was it you said earlier? (my bold): > [@handsomeharry has been banned](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/130): > > **There are all manner of trolling devices,** most but not all from the extreme ends of various political spectra. The linking concept is bringing a blender to the art of shit-stirring. Saying you are one extremist or another, insulting others for using typical definitions of your terms, r **efusing to define your own terms** and blaming murder victims for their own deaths without explanation sounds a lot like shit stirring to me. Are you refusing to define your own terms, or was this an oversight? Still no definition for “faulty distribution channels”. I mentioned this in post 78 and 83. Then there’s all of these too: > [@Bone](#): > > But I notice this pattern from you - you accuse me of doing something…taking things out of context, only quoting two words, or misrepresenting sources. All of these claims are wrong of course, and when I point it out you ignore it. **Why is that?** You said I was only quoting two words and questioned my honor - but of course I quote entire sentences or paragraphs so your claim is false and you ignore it. You said I took things out of context, and then you used the exact same quote I used and claimed it was in context so this claim was ridiculous and you ignore it. And now you say I’m misleading by attacking a claim I never made. It’s bizarre. \*\* So let’s do a quick tally of all the things you’ve gotten wrong in this thread:\*\* [ol] [li]You said a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand - false[/li][li]You said Clinton “muffed” a response saying “absolute immunity” - false[/li][li]You said manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them - false[/li][li]You said I took Clinton’s remarks out of context by quoting two words - false[/li][li]You said I took things out of context in general - false, you quoted the exact same thing[/li][li]You said the “Charleston Loophole” is somehow related to the PLCAA - false[/li][li]You said I made the claim that linked sourced called Clinton a liar - false[/li][/ol] I don’t know about you but I’d be embarrassed if I made so many errors. Maybe it’s better you adopt the ‘less is more’ approach now. The more you make claims the more your tally of errors rises. **And here’s the questions you’ve avoided, maybe on purpose, maybe not:** [ol] [li]do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity?[/li][li]Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats?[/li][li]Can you define your use of the term you created: “faulty distribution channel”?[/li][/ol] So it’s clear Clinton repeatedly used the term “absolute immunity”. She also used the phrase “totally free of liability”. Both of these are false. Clinton knows or should know these are false. I can’t read her mind, but I think she does this with the intent to deceive. Nothing else to call intentional false statements with the intent to deceive except lies - ergo Clinton is a liar. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424)._